Why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States ?

MOST OF ALL OF THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.




What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States ?



1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America 's largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America ."



2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"



3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"



4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010... That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"



5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"



6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!"



7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America 's past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela 's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America .

Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!"



8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!!"



9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!!"



10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.

Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"



11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran .. (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know, I know what you will say. "That will never happen in America !"



If we don't do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2010...

May God have mercy on our worthless souls.

Pass this on to every freedom loving American you can.

Thank you.

S. Kelleher

Take the three minutes to read this. Maybe he is wrong. What if he is right?

History Unfolding

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books on
history that have been published in six languages, and I have studied
history all my life. I have come to think there is something monumentally
large afoot, and I do not believe it is simply a banking crisis, or a
mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely
single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a
sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I
know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.
Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within
our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace
has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make
massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no
real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is
$2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom
or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is
three times the $700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this
past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms
unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a
government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders.
Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our
economy.. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no
longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are
worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically,
read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing,
school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election
(violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it
simply wants marriage to remain defined as between one man and one woman.
Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have
corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write
laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist
groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana
republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall,
major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of
collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire
government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and I
know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its
length, breadth, and depth.. It is potentially 1929 x ten! And we are at
war with an enemy we cannot even name for fear of offending people of the
same religion, who, in turn, cannot wait to slit the throats of your
children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about,
who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as
Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real
radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about
him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have
heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian
defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh,
of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then
demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe
are more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.
This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never,
ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us
along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces
into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when
it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning..

As a serious student of history, I thought I would never come to experience
what the ordinary, moral German must have felt in the mid-1930s. In those
times, the "savior" was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the
streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they
should have known was that he was associated with groups that shouted,
shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way
onto the political stage through great oratory.

Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And there were the promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing
jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and frowned and waved a lot.
And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his
"brown shirts" would bully and beat them into submission. Which they did
regularly. And then, he was duly elected to office, while a full-throttled
economic crisis bloomed at hand - the Great Depression. Slowly, but surely
he seized the controls of government power, person by person, department by
department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The children of German citizens were
at first, encouraged to join a Youth Movement in his name where they were
taught exactly what to think. Later, they were required to do so. No Jews of
course.
How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the
jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial
complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control,
health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill
pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did
it with a compliant media - did you know that? And he did this all in the
name of justice and .... . .. change. And the people surely got what they
voted for.

If you think I am exaggerating, look it up. It's all there in the history
books.

So read your history books. Many people of conscience objected in 1933 and
were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and ridiculed. When Winston
Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the
House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into
his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. And the
world came to regret that he was not listened to.

Do not forget that Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country
in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and
universities. And yet, in less than six years (a shorter time span than just
two terms of the U. S. presidency) it was rounding up its own citizens,
killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and
neighbors against neighbors.. All with the best of intentions, of course.
The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have
a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me
(even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is
shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am
wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is
transpiring around me.

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me,
others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps
I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them
exactly what I believe---and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am. Perhaps the only hope is our vote in
the next elections.( If it will count? )

David Kaiser
Jamestown, Rhode Island
United States

David Kaiser is a respected historian whose published works have covered a
broad range of topics, from European Warfare to American League Baseball.
Born in 1947, the son of a diplomat, Kaiser spent his childhood in three
capital cities: Washington D.C., Albany , New York , and Dakar, Senegal. He
attended Harvard University, graduating there in 1969 with a B.A. in
history. He then spent several years more at Harvard, gaining a PhD in
history, which he obtained in 1976. He served in the Army Reserve from 1970
to 1976.
He is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States
Naval War College. He has previously taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams
College and Harvard University. Kaiser's latest book, The Road to Dallas,
about the Kennedy assassination, was just published by Harvard University
Press.

Dr. David Kaiser

What My Mother Would Tell Obama

Dear Worried American,


As a child of the Great Depression, my mother wasn't able to go to college -- but I swear she was smarter than the educated people who are running the country right now.

And if Mom were alive today, she'd probably give our leaders the same scolding she used to give me: "You have a champagne appetite and a Coca-Cola paycheck."

That was her way of saying that, when you want something you can't afford, you have to work hard and save up for it. But if you try to live beyond your means, you'll end up with nothing but big debts and a bad reputation.

Advice like that used to be common sense, of course. And it still is, among the vast majority of "Main Street" Americans who work hard, pay their mortgages, and rely on themselves -- not government -- to provide for their families and their retirement.

But in what I call the "Wall Street-to-Washington Axis of Power," different rules apply. Your bank is failing because you lent billions to unqualified borrowers? No problem: Here's a multi-billion-dollar bailout to cover your losses -- and to pay yourselves obscene bonuses. Your trillion-dollar budget has no room for a new set of big-government entitlements? No problem: We'll just print a few trillion more dollars -- and worry about inflation later.

That may not be the "change" that many Americans voted for last November -- but it's the change we're all getting. And we're stuck with it for at least a few more years.


Mike Huckabee

Obama Just Doesn't Get It

The president needed to give us facts on Wednesday night. He failed. He needed to compromise but instead he bucked bipartisan solutions and showcased the inflexibility of a zealot combined with the policies of a hard core liberal.

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Someone should have mentioned that to President Obama. He gave us nothing new during his ultra-hyped speech on health care on Wednesday night. After forty-five minutes and a TelePrompter on the verge of overheating, he blew it. The president made history by convening both Houses of Congress just to trot out the same stale speech, complete with the lines about the proposed cuts in Medicare that he refers to as "waste" to tax hikes to fund his plan.

There was one bit of news: an indisputable leftward lurch on the public option that signified not only that he is bound to their demands, but also that he is no Bill Clinton.

Unlike Clinton, Obama tied the public health option to his ankle. And much like a concrete block, he will go down with it. Forty-four moderate Democrats will not vote for the current House bill that includes the public option, enough to deny Pelosi the ability to pass it without Republican support.

To be fair, Obama's opening and closing tone was one of his best yet. But fluffy imperatives that call for us to "act," absent hard facts will not result in a shift in approval numbers. If you had ears but no brain, you would have been moved by the speech (is that why Biden was crying?), but the public is much sharper, particularly when it comes to this issue.

Here's what was missing, besides new material:

No answer on how he can not only expand coverage but also cut costs.

No answer on how private insurance goes down by increasing the costs of insurance

No answer on how to cut the current deficit.

No answer as to why he will cut waste and abuse to help pay for for government run insurance option, but not to help cut the current ballooning deficit.

No answer on how to make medicare solvent.

No answer on why he won't cover illegals, but includes them in his 46 million uninsured count.

No answer on what his plan is for illegals.

No definitive, outcomes based answer on medical malpractice.

No answer on why if this is such an urgent imperative, the plan won't kick in until after he runs for re-election.

I have to admit, the Republican response wasn't exactly a core shaker, either.

Public disapproval of President Obama's handling of health care has skyrocketed to 52 percent, according to the Associated Press-GfK poll. At a time when we're told to expect a $7 to 9 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years, the president is talking about adding another trillion to that number. That begs the question, why now?

Mr. President, you just don't get it. The health care debate ripped your ability to persuade through rhetoric right out of your hands. You needed to give us facts and you failed. You needed to compromise, and you bucked bipartisan solutions showcasing the inflexibility of a zealot, and the policies of a hard core liberal.

Though Obama claims "we are back from the brink" it is his presidency that is on the brink. The brink of collapse.

Andrea Tantaros - FOXNews.com - September 10, 2009

REAL CHANGE

Real change in our government can only happen in one of two ways. One is through an Amendment to the Constitution to create term limits for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress. Now that will never happen. What Senator or Congressman will vote in favor of an amendment which will put them out of a job. So that brings us to the second way which is through the U.S. Citizens through their power to vote. The reason that real change in Washington is not going to happen is due to the fact that there are way too many career politicians there, hence term limits. This career politician thing has allowed power bases and the accumulation of power which then create an agenda that the majority of U.S. Citizens may not agree with hence their will is not represented by elected officials. The term limit would thwart this ability to build power bases and accumulate power and put new citizens into office to represent the will of the people. We the Citizens have the power to do this by coming out and voting, and voting against all incumbent candidates every 1 to 3 terms. This brings us to one other thing. The media makes issue on all candidates, what are their qualifications for the office they are running for. This is a moot point and has no merit. Our Founding Fathers and the Constitution require only that you are a U.S. Citizen and of a certain age. The idea was that my sons and daughters or yours all have the opportunity to run for elected office in our government. If we are to believe the media that you have to have qualifications then that would almost all but eliminate half or more of our sons and daughters opportunity to serve their country through government. So next election let the citizens speak real change through our votes by striving to get 80% or more of the voting public to turn out and vote against all incumbent Senators and Congressmen.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Live Free or Die, Loving NH

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .”Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!Quoting directly from the Resolution: “That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; andThat should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.”I have reported on this blog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!We must stop our federal government dead in its tracks because it is out of control and very dangerous. If stopping them means attacking them and destroying them by force, then so be it.The full New Hampshire resolution is printed below, or you can to the Government’s website and read it there.HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED2009 SESSION09-027409/01HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans AffairsANALYSISThis house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.09-027409/01STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIREIn the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand NineA RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; andWhereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; andWhereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” andWhereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; andWhereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be itResolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; andThat the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; andThat it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; andThat the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; andThat a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; andThat the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; andThat any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; andThat should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; andThat copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

This really warms my heart,

Don't know whether you heard about this but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center , in San Antonio , Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States, especially burn victims There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a Hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying on base, but as you can imagine, they are almost filled most of the time. While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his cheque book out and wrote a cheque for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it The question is - why do: Britney Spears Madonna , Tom Cruise and other Hollywood fluff make front page news with their ridiculous antics and Denzel Washington's charity doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the Local newspaper in San Antonio .
This is what being an American is about.

What do you think?

Our great president Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, but he said something that still resonates today.
Reagan said: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.”
Even more amazing is that Ronald Reagan spoke those words in 1961, before he ever ran for office.
Creating a national health care system has been a major priority for the left wing for over 50 years!
Reagan understood that schemes like Obama's are not about providing quality health care.
It is about statism. It is about government control and dependence. It is a threat to our freedom.